Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Medieval heraldic horse pendants
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="+VGO.DVCKS, post: 4908953, member: 110504"][USER=110350]@DonnaML[/USER], Okay, all the way back. ...Can I tell you some of the story?</p><p>From when I was Really low to the ground, I was always Really Into two groups of things: mummies & pyramids, and knights & castles. Afterward, with a long, leisurely detour into ancient western history (predominantly Roman, emphatically including lower-end coins), the medieval period settled in as my more permanent, functioning center of gravity. (One draw being that this was the last major interval of European history to remain effectively innocent of racism in any recognizably modern, ideological, pseudo-scientific form. --Right, with classism and religious craziness rushing into the vacuum --human nature, and so forth-- but Still. ...That can be another conversation.)</p><p>This went on for years. Fast forward to Christmas Eve, 2005. I'd gotten into the genealogy of my dad's relentlessly New England WASP family. (With a generation's hiatus on two sides of the family, c. later 19th c., in Chicago and San Antonio, Texas. ...Grandpa made a beeline back to Mass. as soon as he could.) Mayflower, Winthrop Fleet, one definite minuteman (Concord and Bunker Hill), yada yada.* If Mom wasn't from the Ozarks, I'd be crosseyed.</p><p>Right, it's Christmas Eve, and I'm staying overnight with my folks. They've just opened an early present from my uncle (aka Dad's Smarter Younger Brother --family's only academic), an abridged edition of an ancestor's diary, 1860-1863, from the manuscript. He included a family tree, operant parts taken directly from the manuscript, with continuations on several different branches from his own primary research. On our side, this netted two surnames in the direct line, neither of which was known to me. ...Doing this stuff from the wrong end of the country, my Achilles' heel, however ironically, had always been the 19th century. Well into the 18th, I had access to enough in print to stay busy. Beyond that, I had to rely on what was already known (with adequate documentation, largely by way of, may we (<--<i>Not </i>the royal kind) say, other primary sources of an informal nature).</p><p>One of the surnames was Chadbourne. Staying up late in the office /guest bedroom, I was trolling for them online. Stumbled onto, Oops, the website of the Chadbourne Family Association. </p><p>--As Charles Cawley's monumental <u>Medieval Families</u> website (right, <a href="http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/index.htm" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/index.htm" rel="nofollow">http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/index.htm</a>) aptly demonstrates,</p><p>there are two kinds of online genealogy: the ones that use the internet as a <i>medium, after</i> the fact, and the ones that Belong on the internet, along with the 3 Ps: pop-up ads, plane tickets, and porn. (...In a world reeking of false dichotomies, this Ain't One of 'em.)</p><p>The Chadbourne website is emphatically in the former category.</p><p><a href="http://www.chadbourne.org/Gen6.html" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.chadbourne.org/Gen6.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.chadbourne.org/Gen6.html</a></p><p>From this page, a Ctrl-F search for "Tux" (for the surname "Tuxbury," a Puritanization of "Tewkesbury") will net you two of my great x3 grandparents. (Where's the superscript function on this?) From there, forward, the lineal progression is seamlessly documented.</p><p>If you click on the operant ancestors from that page, and click on them etc., the website will take you back, a generation at a time, to the 17th century and the descent from Edward I. --Or, as an alternative, you could just go to this website, which gives you the gist of it, in a much more fun way.</p><p><a href="http://oldberwick.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=472&Itemid=278" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://oldberwick.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=472&Itemid=278" rel="nofollow">http://oldberwick.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=472&Itemid=278</a></p><p>This is by way of Thomas of Brotherton, one of Edward's notoriously underachieving children by his second, late, record-brakingly cradle-robbing marriage to Marguerite Capet, a daughter of Philippe III. (--Aunt, Yikes, of Edward II's wife. ...The trend that gives you the Habsburgs, especially as of the 17th-19th centuries, is already starting....)</p><p>For comparison, Meghan Sussex is descended from Edward III, beating me by two generations. (During the pregnancy, I was praying, 'Jesus, Put some Black on him!' --TMI? Sorry....)</p><p>What's so fun about this, especially with help from Charles Cawley (and, for one especially conspicuous instance in print, the <u>Complete Peerage,</u> at the local public library in a reduced, eye-busting facsimile reprint), is effectively twofold. On one hand, in most of the operant marriages, diplomacy was a, if not (why lie?) the primary criterion. Generation by generation, you can see geographic as well as chronological sequences. One favorite instance is the progression from a couple of later Byzantine emperors (Alexius Comnenus and Isaac /Isaakios II Angelos (who had maternal descent from Alexius), to Philipp von Schwaben, a son of Friedrich Barbarossa, to 13th-c. dukes of Brabant, to Philippe III Capet, to Edward I.</p><p>On the other hand, during this whole interval, the royals were also marrying into the upper levels of the aristocracy (much of that in a similarly diplomatic capacity, largely within their own borders). And from c. Edward I onward, I personally get descent from Anglo-Norman aristocracy, sputtering and flickering out as of the early 16th century. (Thing to remember about social mobility in England during the late medieval and Tudor eras: much of it was downward. That's how some statistical genealogists have estimated that, as of the mid-20th century or so, most or all people with continuous English descent can safely count Edward I, at least, among their ancestors. ...C. S. Lewis said something or other once, to the effect that, for that demographic, the only real difference between aristocracy and commoners was that the former <i>knew</i> who they were descended from.</p><p>...Maybe, in light of the extant records, it's effectively the sheer novelty value. But I gravitate first to the aristocratic, instead of the royal sides of this.</p><p>As a collector, there's nothing I love quite so much as a French feudal coin, c. 11th-13h centuries, in the name of the issuing count or seigneur. (No, this is Not about immobilizations. Been there before you were; public service anouncement.) ...Leaving dukes (like my avatar) out of the picture for a minute. Because from the above, some real triangulation takes place. In any given instance, the <i>smaller </i>the polity, starting with geography, and the (very relatively) <i>more </i>primary documentation there is about the individual in question, the more compelling it is.</p><p>...Right, time to shut up for a minute. Thanks again, [USER=110350]@DonnaML[/USER], for being brave enough to ask about it. Hope you don't regret it! :<}</p><p><br /></p><p>*The minuteman's father-in-law was the only known slaveowner (Typo: 'slaveower' --should've kept it) on either side of the family. Of record as such as of, Just Wait for it, 1775. <i>Yeah</i>, <i>In</i> Massa-freaking-Chusetts. Just try <i>that </i>on, for a minute. Kind of why there's, let's say, a commensurate chronological lull in my interest in American history.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="+VGO.DVCKS, post: 4908953, member: 110504"][USER=110350]@DonnaML[/USER], Okay, all the way back. ...Can I tell you some of the story? From when I was Really low to the ground, I was always Really Into two groups of things: mummies & pyramids, and knights & castles. Afterward, with a long, leisurely detour into ancient western history (predominantly Roman, emphatically including lower-end coins), the medieval period settled in as my more permanent, functioning center of gravity. (One draw being that this was the last major interval of European history to remain effectively innocent of racism in any recognizably modern, ideological, pseudo-scientific form. --Right, with classism and religious craziness rushing into the vacuum --human nature, and so forth-- but Still. ...That can be another conversation.) This went on for years. Fast forward to Christmas Eve, 2005. I'd gotten into the genealogy of my dad's relentlessly New England WASP family. (With a generation's hiatus on two sides of the family, c. later 19th c., in Chicago and San Antonio, Texas. ...Grandpa made a beeline back to Mass. as soon as he could.) Mayflower, Winthrop Fleet, one definite minuteman (Concord and Bunker Hill), yada yada.* If Mom wasn't from the Ozarks, I'd be crosseyed. Right, it's Christmas Eve, and I'm staying overnight with my folks. They've just opened an early present from my uncle (aka Dad's Smarter Younger Brother --family's only academic), an abridged edition of an ancestor's diary, 1860-1863, from the manuscript. He included a family tree, operant parts taken directly from the manuscript, with continuations on several different branches from his own primary research. On our side, this netted two surnames in the direct line, neither of which was known to me. ...Doing this stuff from the wrong end of the country, my Achilles' heel, however ironically, had always been the 19th century. Well into the 18th, I had access to enough in print to stay busy. Beyond that, I had to rely on what was already known (with adequate documentation, largely by way of, may we (<--[I]Not [/I]the royal kind) say, other primary sources of an informal nature). One of the surnames was Chadbourne. Staying up late in the office /guest bedroom, I was trolling for them online. Stumbled onto, Oops, the website of the Chadbourne Family Association. --As Charles Cawley's monumental [U]Medieval Families[/U] website (right, [URL]http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/index.htm[/URL]) aptly demonstrates, there are two kinds of online genealogy: the ones that use the internet as a [I]medium, after[/I] the fact, and the ones that Belong on the internet, along with the 3 Ps: pop-up ads, plane tickets, and porn. (...In a world reeking of false dichotomies, this Ain't One of 'em.) The Chadbourne website is emphatically in the former category. [URL]http://www.chadbourne.org/Gen6.html[/URL] From this page, a Ctrl-F search for "Tux" (for the surname "Tuxbury," a Puritanization of "Tewkesbury") will net you two of my great x3 grandparents. (Where's the superscript function on this?) From there, forward, the lineal progression is seamlessly documented. If you click on the operant ancestors from that page, and click on them etc., the website will take you back, a generation at a time, to the 17th century and the descent from Edward I. --Or, as an alternative, you could just go to this website, which gives you the gist of it, in a much more fun way. [URL]http://oldberwick.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=472&Itemid=278[/URL] This is by way of Thomas of Brotherton, one of Edward's notoriously underachieving children by his second, late, record-brakingly cradle-robbing marriage to Marguerite Capet, a daughter of Philippe III. (--Aunt, Yikes, of Edward II's wife. ...The trend that gives you the Habsburgs, especially as of the 17th-19th centuries, is already starting....) For comparison, Meghan Sussex is descended from Edward III, beating me by two generations. (During the pregnancy, I was praying, 'Jesus, Put some Black on him!' --TMI? Sorry....) What's so fun about this, especially with help from Charles Cawley (and, for one especially conspicuous instance in print, the [U]Complete Peerage,[/U] at the local public library in a reduced, eye-busting facsimile reprint), is effectively twofold. On one hand, in most of the operant marriages, diplomacy was a, if not (why lie?) the primary criterion. Generation by generation, you can see geographic as well as chronological sequences. One favorite instance is the progression from a couple of later Byzantine emperors (Alexius Comnenus and Isaac /Isaakios II Angelos (who had maternal descent from Alexius), to Philipp von Schwaben, a son of Friedrich Barbarossa, to 13th-c. dukes of Brabant, to Philippe III Capet, to Edward I. On the other hand, during this whole interval, the royals were also marrying into the upper levels of the aristocracy (much of that in a similarly diplomatic capacity, largely within their own borders). And from c. Edward I onward, I personally get descent from Anglo-Norman aristocracy, sputtering and flickering out as of the early 16th century. (Thing to remember about social mobility in England during the late medieval and Tudor eras: much of it was downward. That's how some statistical genealogists have estimated that, as of the mid-20th century or so, most or all people with continuous English descent can safely count Edward I, at least, among their ancestors. ...C. S. Lewis said something or other once, to the effect that, for that demographic, the only real difference between aristocracy and commoners was that the former [I]knew[/I] who they were descended from. ...Maybe, in light of the extant records, it's effectively the sheer novelty value. But I gravitate first to the aristocratic, instead of the royal sides of this. As a collector, there's nothing I love quite so much as a French feudal coin, c. 11th-13h centuries, in the name of the issuing count or seigneur. (No, this is Not about immobilizations. Been there before you were; public service anouncement.) ...Leaving dukes (like my avatar) out of the picture for a minute. Because from the above, some real triangulation takes place. In any given instance, the [I]smaller [/I]the polity, starting with geography, and the (very relatively) [I]more [/I]primary documentation there is about the individual in question, the more compelling it is. ...Right, time to shut up for a minute. Thanks again, [USER=110350]@DonnaML[/USER], for being brave enough to ask about it. Hope you don't regret it! :<} *The minuteman's father-in-law was the only known slaveowner (Typo: 'slaveower' --should've kept it) on either side of the family. Of record as such as of, Just Wait for it, 1775. [I]Yeah[/I], [I]In[/I] Massa-freaking-Chusetts. Just try [I]that [/I]on, for a minute. Kind of why there's, let's say, a commensurate chronological lull in my interest in American history.[/QUOTE]
Your name or email address:
Do you already have an account?
No, create an account now.
Yes, my password is:
Forgot your password?
Stay logged in
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Medieval heraldic horse pendants
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...